Is space exploration being held hostage by lawyers?

The inimitable Al Fin poses a very interesting and relevant question in a recent article. He asks: "Must We Kill All Tort Lawyers Before We Can Go Into Space?" Here's an extract.

Humans appear to possess an "exploratory instinct," a natural urge to explore. From the very beginning, humans have been willing to risk what they have, in order to find something more. The urge for outer space is another manifestation of this instinct.

. . .

Exploration is risky. Explorers often die. In an outward-looking, exploratory society, the acceptance of risk is so commonplace as to become second nature. Such a society will spawn many explorers, and many pioneers who are willing to follow close behind the explorer to create a more settled life in the new, risk-filled territories.

Modern affluent societies become more risk-averse, more fixed on security over time. This security-fixation often approaches pathological levels, depending upon whether it becomes accepted and codified within legal, cultural, educational, and legislative institutions.

In modern western nations -- particularly the US -- risk aversion in the form of tort is often costing societies their birthright and their future.

Economists have long understood that America's tort system acts as a serious drag on our nation's economy. Although many excellent studies have been conducted, no single work has fully captured the true total costs, both static and dynamic, of excessive litigation.

The good news: We now have some reliable figures. The bad news: The costs are far higher than anyone imagined.

Based on our estimates, and applying the best available scholarly research, we believe America's tort system imposes a total cost on the U.S. economy of $865 billion per year. This constitutes an annual "tort tax" of $9,827 on a family of four.

... litigation doesn't just transfer wealth, it also changes behavior, and often in economically unproductive ways. Any true estimate of the costs of America's tort system must also include these dynamic costs of litigation -- the impact on research and development spending, the costs of defensive medicine and the related rise in health-care spending and reduced access to health care, and the loss of output from deaths due to excess liability. (WSJ)

Most recent attention to tort reform in the US has focused upon medical tort. But the economic destruction of out-of-control US tort law is felt in every part of society, industry, and the economy. In a society ruled by tyranny of tort, all risk is punished pro-actively. In other words, most great ventures are never even attempted, due to the tight noose of tort -- and other effects of excess government -- around the necks of entire societies. As of 2006, costs of tort in the US had been growing at an average rate of almost 10% annually.

In order to advance, humans must take risks. The elimination of risk from society is also the elimination of growth and advancement. Eliminating risk means inevitable stagnation and decline.

. . .

But people will die in the attempt to establish a permanent human presence and economy in space. That is inevitable. People die in hazardous environments on Earth every day, and outer space is far more hazardous than almost anywhere on Earth. Whenever there is a chance of people dying, lawyers flock like flies on excrement.

We can see in the inability of advanced societies to develop a larger, safer, cleaner nuclear power industry, how tort lawyers combined with government regulators drive up costs to the point of abandonment of multi-billion dollar enterprises and loss of future plans and possibilities.

Established powers aim to remain established powers. That is what the vast inbred and corrupt system of government and law has become in the west. Free humans are hemmed in and restricted. Economies stagnate and the human spirit dies a little with every new encroachment by government and its army of allied extortionists.

. . .

Even if improvements in technology allowed the costs of space launch were to come down enough to make travel to the moon economical for middle class incomes, the inbred risk-aversion of modern societies places a limit on how far the movement could progress -- without massive changes in western government and legal systems.

Must we kill all tort lawyers and their fellows in crime, before the human instinct to explore and pioneer can find an outlet in space?

There's more at the link. Highly recommended and thought-provoking reading.

Al Fin cites the Wall Street Journal's estimate of tort costs, and confirms them by referring to the 2006 edition of the annual Towers Perrin survey of the field. The latest edition of the Towers Perrin report, for 2009, may be read here. It makes one point that's worth noting:

From 1981 to 2008, in all but two terms (1993-2000), the U.S was headed by a Republican president. While the presidency itself may not directly influence tort costs, the president’s judicial appointments may have a more meaningful impact. This 28-year period reflects a shift in judicial attitudes regarding the rights of plaintiffs versus defendants in litigation. Given the recent change in administration, we envision the possibility of a new era involving an opposite pendulum shift in judicial attitudes and tort cost growth.

As a result, we are forecasting higher levels of tort cost growth in both 2010 (4%) and 2011 (6%).

I've mentioned the Towers Perrin annual tort cost surveys in a previous article, when I pointed out:

I believe the Towers Perrin figures, if only because the trial lawyers of America universally hate, loathe, despise and reject them! When the sharks object to being called out as the carnivores they are, you can be pretty sure the person doing the calling is spot on! As Jim Copeland of the Manhattan Institute has pointed out: "In America, 50% of the money paid by plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases goes to injured parties and 50% goes to lawyers and for court costs."

Again, there's more at the link.

Al Fin poses a very thought-provoking question. Will our risk-averse, lawsuit-addicted society ever loosen its self-imposed restraints sufficiently for space exploration - and, in due course, colonization - to succeed? I hope and pray so, because the future of the human race on this one small, overcrowded, at-risk world isn't very bright unless we can spread beyond the confines of the solar system. Of course, there are those who think we shouldn't do that because of the 'risk' we would present to some hypothetical 'other intelligent life' out there . . . but I'm afraid I don't buy that argument. The survival of our race is an imperative in our very genetic make-up. I don't have a problem with extending that in every possible way.

Meanwhile, perhaps we should re-read Shakespeare's prescription for dealing with lawyers . . . and, as Al Fin suggests, consider acting upon it if they become a brake on our prospects for survival - even if some lawyers (not surprisingly) would prefer us to understand that passage differently!

Peter